REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on February 9, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President McGlumphy presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Speed, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
Council staff members present were Captain Taraila, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Galvin, First Assistant Fire Chief Carey, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. Green, and Mayor Hutchison.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President McGlumphy declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 29, 2004
By consent agenda, the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of January 29, 2004 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Speed, and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2004
By consent agenda, the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 2, 2004 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Speed, and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH KIRKWOOD STREET, OWNED BY ROBERT M. DUNCAN
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 135 South Kirkwood Street, containing .1722+/- acres, owned by Robert M. Duncan. The property is currently zoned RG-1 (General Residence) and the proposed zoning is C-2 (Central Commercial).
Planner's Review
Mr. James Galvin, City Planner, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #1). The Planning Commission recommended that the request for rezoning be approved.
Public Hearing
Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Speed moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance: (The First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 12, 2004.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF .1722+/- ACRES, LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH KIRKWOOD STREET
WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from RG-1 (General Residence) to C-2 (Central Commercial).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from RG-1 to C-2, on that property located at 135 South Kirkwood Street, containing .1722+/- acres, owned by Robert M. Duncan.
ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 9, 2004
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 29, 2004
The Utility Committee met on January 29, 2004, with Chairman Ruane presiding.
Annexation Request - South Side of Chestnut Grove Road, West of Kenton Road, Owned by Chestnut Grove Farm
Members considered an annexation request for property located on the south side of Chestnut Grove Road, west of Kenton Road, owned by Chestnut Grove Farm. Mr. Galvin informed members that the proposed annexation area consists of 50.8+/- acres and that the proposed zoning, upon annexation, is RM-1 (Medium Density Residential). The initial conceptual plan for the development of the property proposes 40 single family detached dwellings, 28 duplexes, and 131 townhouses. Mr. Galvin indicated that the property was identified in the Comprehensive Plan Update 2003 as a Category 2 - Lands Desirable for Annexation.
Ms. Melson summarized the Cost/Revenue Analysis and the Plan of Services. Over a ten (10) year period, the total impact cost is estimated at $2,898,046. The total revenue is estimated at $4,323,104, which yields an estimated net revenue of $1,425,058.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Tom Burns, Burns & Ellis Reality, stated that the Department of Transportation’s language (noted in the Development Advisory committee (DAC) comments of November 26, 2003) did not require a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and only requested that the applicant work with the Department of Transportation for potential intersection upgrades.
Mr. Ruane stated that several residents in the area have expressed traffic and storm water concerns. Mr. Burns stated he has personally met with Mr. Terrance Zimmerman, 138 Sweetgum Drive, and Mr. T. Kae Johnson, 314 Parkway Drive, to review the proposed plans and address traffic concerns. He also indicated that an open forum meeting was scheduled to be held later this evening (7:30 p.m.) at Maple Dale Country Club for neighbors and residents from the area for an overview of the proposed project and to hear and address any and all concerns. Mr. Burns stated that they are working well within requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Farling informed members that Tidewater Utilities currently has jurisdiction in the area requesting to be annexed. Indicating that this is a first occurrence, Mr. Koenig stated that negotiations and a possible purchase may need to be negotiated. Mr. Koenig informed members that Tidewater Utilities has no existing infrastructure in place and referred to a current agreement between the City of Dover and Tidewater Utilities, which provides for Tidewater Utilities surrendering their jurisdiction for properties annexed into the City.
The committee recommended approval of the annexation request, taking into consideration that special attention be given to the traffic and water supply issues related to this annexation.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Cranberry Run
Mr. Koenig informed members that the developer of the Cranberry Run Subdivision, Gilman Development, has requested that all public rights-of-way and infrastructure be dedicated to the City of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. Members reviewed the configuration of the subject rights-of-way. A one (1) year Maintenance Agreement, Maintenance Bond, and a Release of Liabilities have been submitted by the developer.
The committee recommended approval of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure in the Cranberry Run Subdivision.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Street Waiver Request - Nottingham Meadows
The applicant of Nottingham Meadows has requested a waiver from the City of Dover Subdivision Street design standards set forth in the Land Subdivision Regulations of the Dover Code, Appendix A, Article VI, Section A. Specifically, the applicant has requested a waiver from the minimum thirty-eight (38) foot paved width requirements to permit paved widths of thirty-two (32) feet. The right-of-way will be maintained at sixty (60) feet. A portion of the roadway at each entrance will remain at thirty-eight (38) feet paved width.
Mr. Galvin advised members that the Plan proposes to establish Nottingham Meadows Subdivision, a Planned Neighborhood Design development on 105.066+/- acres of land. The property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Hazlettville Road and Wyoming Mill Road. The property is zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residential). The owner of record is Alvin L. Brittingham and the equitable owner is Stover Homes.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed street width waiver request as part of its review of the Conceptual Subdivision Plan for Nottingham Meadows and recommended approval of the waiver as requested.
In an effort to deter on street parking, it was suggested that it be stipulated that the driveways in Nottingham Meadows Subdivision be at least 14' wide, thinking that if residents have a wider driveway, they would be more likely to park there than on the street.
The committee recommended approval of the requested street waiver for the Nottingham Meadows Subdivision, stipulating that each driveway be at least 14' wide, while retaining a 60' right-of-way width.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Update - Electric Rate Study Implementation Plan
Mr. DePrima distributed and briefly reviewed an updated Electric Rate Study Status Report. Mr. DePrima reminded members that the purpose of the Electric Rate Study was to ensure that electric (rate) customers are being charged fairly; not to be confused as a source of additional revenue for the City of Dover.
Mr. DePrima recommended the beginning of the following three (3) steps: 1) prepare a presentation for the Utility Committee (executive session) so that members have a full understanding of the proposed electric rates; 2) provide the Utility Committee with a series of suggested motions; and 3) encourage staff to meet individually with the City of Dover’s larger electric customers to review the proposed changes to their electric rates prior to holding public hearings.
No further action was taken.
Recommendation - Dover Air Force Base - Privatization Contract
An executive session was held on February 9, 2004 to discuss the Dover Air Force Base privatization contract.
The committee recommended that City staff be authorized to submit a proposal for the Wastewater Utility Privatization for Dover Air Force Base as detailed in Solicitation No. SP0600-04-R-004 which has been issued by the Defense Energy Support Center on behalf of the United States Air Force.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee report, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 2, 2004
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on February 2, 2004, with Chairman Speed presiding.
Comments of Councilman Ritter
Referring to comments that he made during the Regular Council Committee Meeting of January 12, 2004, concerning Reapportionment of Council District Boundaries (Recommendation of the City of Dover Election Board - Meeting of November 3, 2003), Mr. Ritter apologized for not making his point clear and read the following statement:
“I made statements that may have given the perception that I was making this personal. I apologize for that perception. What I was trying to address was how the new district lines seemed unfair as there was a departure from practice used in previous years. Only one plan was submitted. The plan did not keep neighborhoods together and the Election Board drew the lines previously in 1992, not the City Clerk. So, I apologize to all who may have been offended.”
Presentation by the Office of State Planning Coordination - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS)
Mr. David Edgell of the Office of State Planning Coordination (OSPC), reviewed the Preliminary Land Use Service Process (PLUS), Revising the Land Use Planning Acting (LUPA) to Create the Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS), a diagram of LUPA and PLUS processes, and the Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Checklist.
Mr. Edgell advised members that their office has been modeling a process whereby the State agencies review larger projects at the beginning stages of the process, prior to submission to the local jurisdictions. As a result, PLUS was adopted by the legislature. Mr. Edgell noted that PLUS works differently than LUPA in a number of ways, notably that the developer is responsible for submitting projects to the State agency for review prior to submission to local governments. Secondly, he noted that with this process only certain types of projects are required to go through the review; other projects remain voluntary. Mr. Edgell stated that this process would outline the review requirement criteria.
The City of Dover Planning staff worked with the Office of State Planning Coordination staff in the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for how development activities within the City of Dover will be reviewed under PLUS. The PLUS process was established in Delaware Code by recent state legislation and goes into effect in February 2004. Members were provided a Draft Memorandum of Understanding for PLUS between the City of Dover, Delaware and the Office of State Planning Coordination, as recommended by Planning Commission.
Mr. James Galvin, Director of Planning and Inspections, advised members that the amendment addresses instances when land use decisions would have little or no impact on neighborhoods or the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Galvin stated that there is a de minimis concept in zoning case law that allows very small variances without substantive documentation. “De Minimis non curat lex” is described as “The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles.” Mr. Galvin noted that the City and the State are equally concerned with the time involved in referring and reviewing minor issues.
The committee recommended approval of the Memorandum of Understanding, as amended with the “De Minimus” Impact (Minor Variation) and striking item C-3-a, “No public opposition is exhibited at any public hearings.”
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Review of Revised Travel Policy
During the Regular Council Meeting of January 12, 2004, Mr. Carey requested the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee to conduct a review of the recently adopted Travel Policy. He noted that members of Council traveled recently and felt it would be a good opportunity to review the policy for any necessary fine tuning. As a result, the Finance Director presented amendments for members consideration.
Referring to the last paragraph of Section A-2, Scope, Mr. Salters suggested that the sentence “However, in the interest of achieving maximum uniformity, exceptions will be permitted only in highly unusual circumstances.” be stricken to eliminate redundancy.
The committee recommended approval of the Citywide Travel Policy, as amended to include the recommendations of the Finance Director and Mr. Salters.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Recommendations - Pay for Performance
During the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee Meeting of January 12, 2004, Mr. DePrima, City Manager, provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed Pay-for-Performance Policy and the proposed Bonus Policy. He requested that members submit any comments, suggestions, and/or questions prior to the next committee meeting for consideration.
Mr. DePrima noted that he had received comments from members of the committee and Council and, if there was no objection to the comments, he would incorporate those suggestions, as well as any other suggestions which might be received, for presentation to the committee at their next meeting.
Mr. DePrima provided members with Examples of Applying the Pay for Performance (PFP) Increase to Score and a PFP Salary Calculation Worksheet for their review.
The committee moved to defer the decision on Recommendations - Pay for Performance until the next meeting of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Discussion - Charter and Code Review
Due to insufficient time, the above-mentioned item was deferred until the next committee meeting.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration committee report, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
ANNEXATION/REZONING PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHESTNUT GROVE ROAD, WEST OF KENTON ROAD CONTAINING 50.8+/- ACRES (OWNED BY CHESTNUT GROVE FARM, L.P.)
An annexation referendum was held on January 29, 2004 for property located on the south side of Chestnut Grove Road, west of Kenton Road, owned by Chestnut Grove Farm, L. P.
Referendum Results
The City Clerk reported that the referendum was held with one (1) eligible voter. One (1) vote was cast in favor of the annexation, with no votes cast against annexation.
Mr. Salters moved to accept the referendum results, seconded by Mr. Pitts and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Annexation
By motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Ruane, Council adopted the following Resolution by a unanimous roll call vote:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVER.
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City after a special election of the qualified voters and real estate owners of the territory proposed to be annexed, and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover deem it in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an area contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described within the limits of the City of Dover, and
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if a majority of the Votes cast in an election held in a territory proposed to be annexed shall be in favor of inclusion of that territory within the limits of the City of Dover, the Council may thereupon adopt a resolution annexing said territory and including same within the limits of the City of Dover.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. That the following described area, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, shall be annexed to and included within the limits of the City of Dover:
ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land with all improvements thereon erected, situate in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, lying on southerly side of County Road #158 (Chestnut Grove Road), a short distance southwest of County Road #104 (Dover-Kenton Road), being bounded on the north in part by lands now or formerly of Thomas J. Manzi, in part by County Road #158, and in part by lands now or formerly of Brian C. Connaghan, on the east in part by lands now or formerly of said Manzi, in part by lands now or formerly of said Connaghan, and in part by lands now or formerly of the Westfield Subdivision, on the south by lands now or formerly of the Heatherfield Subdivision, on the southwest by lands now or formerly of Jane M. Draper, and on the west in part by lands now or formerly of the Hunters Pointe Subdivision, in part by lands now or formerly of Walter J. Ellis, and in part by lands now or formerly of said Manzi, and being more particularly described as follows to wit:
BEGINNING for the same at a point in the southerly right-of-way line for County Road #158 (50.00 feet wide) at a corner for this parcel and lands now or formerly of Brian C. Connaghan, said point being located the following two (2) courses from the point of commencement being the intersection of the centerline of County Road #104 (70.00 feet wide) with the centerline of County Road #158: (1) running from the point of commencement with the centerline of said County Road #158, South 68° 59’ 40” West – 705.99 feet to a point; thence (2) leaving said centerline and running normal thereto, South 21° 00’ 20” East – 25.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence from the said point of beginning running with the line for lands now or formerly of Brian C. Connaghan the following two (2) courses: (1) South 29° 28’ 59” East – 177.27 feet to a point; thence (2) North 70° 13’ 50” East – 150.00 feet to a point in the line for lands now or formerly of the Westfield Subdivision; thence running with line for said Westfield Subdivision, South 27° 03’ 23” East – 1667.12 feet to a point in the line for lands now or formerly of the Heatherfield Subdivision at a corner for this parcel and said Westfield Subdivision; thence running with the line for said Heatherfield Subdivision, South 62° 57’ 16” West – 974.77 feet to a point in the line for lands of Jane M. Draper at a corner for this parcel and lands of the said Heatherfield Subdivision; thence running in part with the lands now or formerly of Jane M. Draper and in part more or less with the centerline of East Dover Hundred Tax Ditch the following twelve (12) courses: (1) North 23° 26’ 49” West – 147.17 feet to a point; thence (2) North 27° 10’ 21” West – 44.47 feet to a point; thence (3) North 50° 33’ 06” West – 47.61 feet to a point; thence (4) North 64° 15’ 24” West – 245.80 feet to a point; thence (5) North 63° 47’ 24” West – 95.32 feet to a point; thence (6) North 64° 16’ 54” West – 177.88 feet to a point; thence (7) North 63° 53’ 19” West – 268.62 feet to a point; thence (8) North 62° 06’ 43” West – 88.84 feet to a point; thence (9) North 31° 58’ 45” West – 42.45 feet to a point; thence (10) North 12° 39’ 37” West – 91.86 feet to a point; thence (11) North 04° 54’ 19” West – 54.58 feet to a point; thence (12) North 07° 56’ 31” West – 160.66 feet to a point in the centerline of Cahoon Branch at a common corner for this parcel, lands now or formerly of Jane M. Draper, lands now or formerly of Hunters Pointe Subdivision, and lands now or formerly of Walter J. Ellis; thence running in part more or less with the centerline of said Cahoon Branch and in part with the lands of said Ellis the following five (5) courses: (1) South 74° 01’ 24” East – 9.90 feet to a point; thence (2) North 31° 25’ 18” East – 23.01 feet to a point; thence (3) North 52° 41’ 32” East – 26.81 feet to a point; thence (4) North 09° 56’ 32” East – 415.80 feet to a point; thence (5) North 07° 26’ 32” East – 317.99 feet to a point at a corner for this parcel and lands now or formerly of Thomas J. Manzi; thence running with the line for lands of said Manzi the following four (4) courses: (1) South 86° 42’ 37” East – 58.66 feet to a point; thence (2) South 11° 59’ 37” East – 52.63 feet to a point; thence (3) North 74° 21’ 04” East – 386.30 feet to a point; thence (4) North 15° 38’ 56” West – 184.68 feet to a point of curvature in the southerly right-of-way line for said County Road #158 at a corner for this parcel and lands of said Manzi; thence running with the said southerly right-of-way in an easterly direction along a 1662.02 feet radius curve to the left, said curve having a chord bearing of North 73° 04’ 47” East and a chord length of 13.45 feet, an arc length of 13.45 feet to a point of tangency; thence continuing with the same, North 68° 59’ 40” East – 313.98 feet to a point, the Place of Beginning.
Containing within the above described metes and bounds 50.8 acres of land, be the same more or less.
2. The above described property shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning classification of RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) in accordance with the zoning map and environs, then in force, effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of Dover.
3. That the certified copy of the resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the area annexed, shall be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County.
4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 10th day of February 2004 at 12:01 a.m. o'clock.
ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 9, 2004
Public Hearing - Zoning Classification
Mr. James Galvin, City Planner, reviewed the petition to annex and zone property (Exhibit #2). The Planning Commission recommended that the zoning classification of this property be approved as RM-1 (Medium Density Residential) upon annexation, noting that the property was identified as a Category 2 - Lands Desirable for Annexation, in the Comprehensive Plan Update 2003. The Planning Commission included the recommendation that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be completed prior to site development application for the subdivision of land so that area transportation concerns may be addressed in the very preliminary stages relative to further development.
Mr. Ruane requested Mr. Galvin to summarize the correspondence, dated February 6, 2004, from Mr. Ralph Reeb, DelDOT Director of Planning. Mr. Galvin advised members that Mr. Reeb feels that he is well aware of the issues involved with this parcel and that he does not feel that a full TIS needs to be conducted, nor should DelDOT’s staff be required to review such a study. He noted that Mr. Reeb has instead recommended that the developer be required to improve the intersection of Kenton Road and Chestnut Grove Road by providing a left turn lane to keep vehicles that are traveling north on Kenton Road and wishing to turn left onto Chestnut Grove Road from blocking other vehicles traveling north on Kent Road. Mr. Reeb suggested that the developer either be required to make the improvements to DelDOT’s satisfaction or, if they were unable to obtain sufficient right-of-way to construct the improvements, contribute an equivalent sum of money to make the improvements in the course of DelDOT’s work to improve this road.
Mr. Ruane noted that the recommendations contained in the letter were more detailed and prescriptive than the original DelDOT comments made during the DAC meeting. It was Mr. Galvin’s feeling that DelDOT’s recommendations to the developer would satisfy the concerns of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ruane noted that the City had previously requested DelDOT to evaluate this corridor, from Route 8 to Dennys Road, for necessary improvements. He also advised members that the proposed improvements would not take place anytime soon. Mr. Ruane noted for the record, that DelDOT improvements would be made in a more timely fashion if Council and the public at large would make it known on any occasion possible, such as when DelDOT holds public hearings on their plans and when they go before the General Assembly for Bond Bill money, that they would like the improvements to be made sooner than later and persuade the legislature and the Secretary of Transportation to move up in the Que such improvements.
Mr. Truitt expressed concern with the preservation of the stand of trees. He reminded members that 10 years ago, the developer of Bay Tree promised to keep the trees and then removed all of them. Mr. Galvin noted that the City now has an ordinance which requires the developer to maintain at least 50% of any trees on the parcel. Additionally, there is a landscaping requirement that trees be added to the subdivision as development occurs. Mr. DePrima stated that the City prohibits the clearing of any wetland woodlands, which is more restrictive than County regulations.
Mr. Salters, noting the amount of correspondence received regarding the rezoning, stated that the citizens are concerned with the density permitted under the proposed zoning designation. He asked for clarification on the density permitted in the City compared with the density which would be permitted by the County. Mrs. Williams stated that it was her understanding that there would be a difference of 23 units. Mr. Salters stated that maintaining the quality of life of the existing residents should be considered along with the needs of the developer.
Mr. Ritter stated that the issue was whether the City wanted to regulate the development or let the County regulate it. He noted that the development would occur either way and the City would have to provide the utilities regardless of it being in or outside of the city.
Council President McGlumphy declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Tom Burns, representing the applicant, advised members that a meeting was held between the developer and the neighboring property owners on January 29, 2004 to discuss their concerns regarding tree preservation and environmental sensitivity with regard to the wetland areas.
Mr. Burns noted that the Kent County Growth Zone Map, which was developed as a mandate of the Liveable Delaware Plan in terms of the extension of infrastructure and public services, anticipates development growth ending two farms past the proposed property. He stated that this parcel is zoned RS-1, which currently allows single-family and duplex homes up to 3.5 units per acre. Mr. Burns noted that within 18 months of Kent County’s adoption of its Comprehensive Plan, the parcel will be rezoned as medium density to bring it into conformance with the plan. The new zone would allow 3 to 5.8 units per acre. Mr. Burns stated that the developer is proposing construction of 199 units, or 4 units per acre, which is substantially below the number allowed by Kent County. Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. Burns stated that it was not economically feasible for the developer to eliminate the townhouse component of the development.
Mr. Burns stated that the developer plans to build 1,800 to 2,200 square foot townhouses. He noted that the townhouses and duplexes would be priced to sell between $160,000 and $200,000, and the single-family homes would sell for $200,000. The developer plans to build the single-family homes, duplexes, and townhouses with equal amenities. He noted that the properties would be deed restricted so that a homeowner’s association would take complete control of grounds maintenance. Mr. Burns stated that each townhouse unit would have a garage and the homeowners would be required to keep their trash receptacles and other unsightly items in their garages until trash collection day.
In order to provide compatibility, Mr. Burns advised members that the developer plans to build single-family homes adjacent to the existing single-family homes in Westfield and duplexes adjacent to existing duplexes in Heatherfield. Mr. Burns stated that no townhouses would border either of the two (2) communities. He also noted that there are 350 feet of solid woodlands behind the townhouses, running through to the Hunter’s Point subdivision, which would not be removed. He noted that the City’s DAC required the developer to construct alleys behind the townhouses. Mr. Burns, noting that they met all the necessary codes, stated that they are now required to “pursue” alleys rather than actually construct alleys; thereby preserving those woodlands. He noted that it would be necessary to remove some trees in the area of the proposed duplexes and the rear of some of the townhouses. Mr. Burns emphasized that trees add value to property and they would not wantonly remove more than was necessary.
Mr. Burns, noting the Planning Commission’s recommendation that a traffic impact study (TIS) be performed, stated that correspondence dated February 2, 2004 from Mr. Ralph Reeb, Director of Planning with DelDOT, recommended that a study not be required since it would provide no new information and conducting a study would not be a prudent use of their resources. Mr. Reeb instead recommended that the developer be required to improve the intersection of Kenton Road and Chestnut Grove Road by providing a left turn lane to keep vehicles that are traveling north on Kenton Road and wishing to turn left onto Chestnut Grove Road from blocking other vehicles traveling north on Kenton Road. Mr. Reeb suggested that the developer either be required to make the improvements to DelDOT’s satisfaction or, if they were unable to obtain sufficient right-of-way to construct the improvements, contribute an equivalent sum of money to make the improvements in the course of DelDOT’s work to improve this road. Mr. Burns stated that the developer agreed to follow the recommendations set forth in DelDOT’s letter.
Mr. Burns noted that there were three (3) rezonings in 2003, Foxhall Plantation (RM-1), the Brittingham Farm/Stover Builders (RM-1), and lands of MCCK (Dr. McClements)(RM-2), which did not require traffic impact studies. It was Mr. Burns’ feeling that they were arbitrarily and capriciously being required to do a traffic impact study, which DelDOT has advised against. He noted that DelDOT would not issue the necessary permits until their requirements were met.
Mr. Terrance Zimmerman, 138 Sweetgum Drive, Westfield, stated that the addition of the proposed 199 homes being serviced by one (1) two-lane road (Chestnut Grove Road) feeding into another two-lane road (Kenton Road) would create a significant traffic congestion impact in the area. Mr. Zimmerman referred to a letter received by Mr. Galvin from Ms. Constance Holland of State Planning Coordination dated January 30, 2004. The letter stated that the development would generate an estimated 1,550 trips per day, which is less than the number which would require a TIS.
Mr. Zimmerman stated that the addition of a right-hand turn lane from Chestnut Grove Road onto Kenton road would not change the fact that it is a two-lane road with a certain capacity. He noted that there is already congestion, which will be compounded by an additional 199 homes with residents leaving for work and school at relatively the same time and returning at the same time. Mr. Zimmerman referred to development in the Middletown area, which has made it virtually impossible to conveniently pass through the area without experience significant delays and congestion any time of the day or night. He noted that they have been promised traffic infrastructure improvement for years and very little, if anything, has been done.
Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that Chestnut Grove Road has no shoulders and many Amish buggies travel that road. He also expressed concern with pedestrian safety, noting that bikers, joggers, and walkers take a huge risk when they use either road for exercise or activity.
Mr. Zimmerman asked how many more housing units could be built on the two (2) remaining parcels outlined in the Kent County Growth Zone Map. He noted that, although DelDOT does not require a TIS, it would not be arbitrary nor capricious for the City to request the developer to have one performed prior to further development of the parcel.
Mr. Bob Sadusky, 88 Lynnhaven Drive, stated that he owns property across the street from Westfield. He advised members that he observed the traffic on several days, at various times of the day, and did not witness traffic backing up on either road. He noted that most of the traffic occurs between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. Mr. Sadusky stated that he counted 488 cars traveling east to the stop sign at Kenton Road between 6:30 and 9:00 a.m.; 708 cars traveling south on Kenton Road; and 359 cars traveling north on Kenton Road.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Sadusky stated that his property was not involved in any way with the proposed development.
Mr. Brian Connaghan, 2478 Chestnut Grove Road, stated that he is very aware of the traffic and the environmental impact on the area. He noted that there are fresh water snails off the corner of his property, which would not exist if there were not constant water. Mr. Connaghan also advised members that deer, fox, birds, and a family of groundhogs live in the woods. He stated that he was concerned that the development would displace the natural wildlife. Mr. Connaghan expressed concern with the speed at which traffic currently travels and the traffic congestion already being experienced. He noted that he has seen at least a dozen accidents at the corner since he moved there in 1978. Mr. Connaghan stated that people dart around other cars then slide into the ditch since there are no shoulders on the road or try to pull out to make a quick left turn and are hit by on-coming traffic. He noted that increasing the traffic by only one car per additional household will be a nightmare. Mr. Connaghan requested that approval be granted only for the minimum number of houses allowed.
Major Ken Slater, 111 Stoney Drive, Heatherfield, stated that he has been a resident for 10 years. He stated that he understood the need for the City to grow and increase its tax base. In addition to the traffic, water runoff, and infrastructure concerns, he stated that he was concerned with the aesthetic value of having the woods in his backyard. Major Slater also expressed concern with the 50% clearing ordinance. He felt the intent was being skewed by the developer in that they are including the wetlands, which cannot be developed, in the calculations for clearing and development density. Major Slater stated that the end result would be a more dense development. Referring to Mr. Burns’ earlier comments, Major Slater stated that if three (3) properties had been rezoned to medium density in the past year, a less dense zone would be more appropriate for this parcel.
Ms. Ann Yates, 129 Stoney Drive, Heatherfield, stated that she was concerned with impact that this project would have on water management - both drainage and water supply. She stated that the existing forested area remains because it has poor drainage. Ms. Yates stated that an arborist from the Hagley Museum informed her that there were many trees indicative of wetlands.
Ms. Yates noted that the proposed area of development is at a higher elevation than Heatherfield which indicates that there will be runoff in the Heatherfield direction. She stated that the Branch Creek system was designed to control drainage; however, it was inadequate and Dover had to build the East Dover tax ditch.